Spaceman wrote:

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143053925.803094.199700@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

What evidence do you have of smaller bits at all. Just a hunch? Or you
just know in your heart of hearts?

What evidence do you have that electrons are not made
of smaller parts?

There isn't any. Why is that reason to assume that they are? Wouldn't
it be better perhaps to ponder how you might experimentally test
whether they are or not, and then go look for that?

Are electrons solid?

"Solid" is not a term that has the same meaning for electron-scale
objects as it does on the macroscopic scale. What does "solid" mean to
you? Note that gaseous water and solid water have the same molecules
making them up.

Can you not smash up an electron?

No one has yet.

Do you think electrons can not be made of smaller parts?

That's not what I asked you. I asked what *evidence* you have of
smaller bits in electrons. Is it sufficient to you that something is
possible for you to posit that it is so?

Depends on how many make up an electron.

So you don't know. Nor do you have a model that would suggest how many
there are.

Did I say I had such a model at all?
No.
I gave an idea.

Ah, and here's the point, spaceman. Having ideas for a hobby, as a
moment of self-amusing mental masturbation, is one thing. It isn't
science. Doing physics means developing an idea to see if it can
quantitatively explain something that hasn't been explained before, or
predict something quantitatively that would be testable with a
*measurement*, with a specific numeral zone cited for a likely place to
look.

Having quarter-baked ideas like "what if all atoms were tiny little
galaxies?" or "what if there is some sort of conserved stuff that comes
in three values to account for why there are three generations of
fermions?" or "what if the Earth was *designed* to look over 4 billion
years old, even though it's really only 6000 years old?" or "what if
there are smaller things inside quarks and electrons?" -- those are
mental farts: a bit of noise, then a bad smell, and then they're gone.

You just don't want to think about it so don't.
No loss here.

Oh, I don't mind thinking about it. I don't mind you thinking about it.
What I object to is your thinking about it for maybe fifteen seconds,
congratulating yourself for the clever thought, and then posting the
idea as though you know already it is right:
"Won't it be funny when they find out that this so called "dark matter"
is actually just free electron "bits" and other particle "parts" that
have simply expanded far enough apart that they can not be detected as
"free" electrons" or complete particles as they are "normally"
detected. :) "

Not "Wouldn't it be funny if..."
Instead, you say, "Won't it be funny when..."

Sure sounded to me like you were claiming more than idea. Sounded like
you had evidence. Which is why I asked for it.

The rest of the surrounding smaller parts do such.

You mean another kind of smaller part? There's two kinds of smaller
parts in an electron? How do you know and what makes them different?

Am I suppose to do your thinking also?
Did I say there are two kinds?
No.

So I'll ask the question again. Have you give ANY thought to how these
itty bitty parts explain the behavior or the properties of the
electron, such as two and only two orientations in a magnetic field?

No, I guess not.

Again,
I came up with an idea.
You don't like it so it is no loss to me.

Hmm,
Maybe it is too small for equipment of today to detect?

Gee, what do you think makes an electron detectable? It's size?

Did I say that?
again no.
What do you think makes an electron detectable?

I asked you first. What makes an electron detectable?

What physical law states smaller things can not exist?

No physical law forbids wild-***** guesses, spaceman, but you'll note
that in recent scientific history, when smaller things were proposed
there was a reason, derived from experimental evidence, that suggested
the properties of the smaller things. You have the mistaken impression
that someone just dreamed up, "I'll bet there are smaller things inside
protons. I think I'll call them quarks. Maybe I'll get famous if this
blind guess is right."

I am not proposing a full blown theory here.
Where did I state this the the theory I propose?
I merely stated and idea.

Then state it like an idea, spaceman, instead of sniggering at science
and muttering something about "Won't it be funny when they find out
that electrons are really made of smaller bits and this accounts for
dark matter?"
If you have an idea and JUST an idea, then float it out there JUST as
an idea. I'm sure you can do that without sounding like you know it to
be a fact.

You don't like the idea, that is fine, no loss again for me.

You mean the gathering of bits.
Again you show you did not actually read what I stated?

No, read what you read yourself. You said that dark matter was just
free electron bits that have expanded far enough apart that they can't
be detected. So how far apart do bits have to expand before they become
undetectable?

Far enough that a charge could not be detectable to say
there was an electron there.

And how does charge make itself detectable?
Here's an interesting question for you. I wonder if you have any idea
what the answer is.
Let's take a 2 cm aluminum ball, and a 20 cm aluminum ball, and let's
put the same number of excess electrons on each one, give or take a
couple.
Now, at a distance of 30 cm from the center of each ball, which of
these balls has a larger electric field at that distance?

Again,
How much does a cloud have to expand to not be a cloud?

Gee, I dunno, spaceman. How much *does* a cloud have to expand for it
not to be a cloud?

It would be in the same though as such.

You need to stop the thought that the bits themselves expanded.
the bits may or may not expand, it is the gathering of them
that makes them detectable.

And so why do we see only electrons or nothing? Why don't we see
something in between, like a fuzzy electron? And what would be the
properties of a fuzzy electron as opposed to a completely coalesced
electron?

Why do you think it would have to have a "fuzzy" in between stage at
all?
Is there a stage between liquid and gas that could be called a fuzzy
liquid?

Ah, so now you are hinting at something interesting, because there is a
very interesting physical phenomenon called a phase transitions between
liquid and gaseous states, with all sorts of measurable and predictable
thermodynamic implications at those phase transitions. By the way,
above the critical point, there is indeed a fuzzy liquid with no phase
transition between gas and liquid phases. Did you know that?
So applying that same idea to electrons, are you suggesting that there
is a phase transition between the dispersed-bits stage and the
clumped-bits stage? What then would you expect for a phase transition
implications?

Do you now understand the could anaolgy?
Can you see a cloud with your eyes when you put it in a vacuum?

Um, probably. Why, what do you think would happen?

Probably?
Why probably?
If the cloud expanded it would not longer actually
be a cloud.

Really? Care to explain what makes a cloud a cloud?

Can todays technolgy "see" the bits that an electron is made of
if they are not gathered as an electron?

Probably, why wouldn't they? What do you think the "seeing" limit is of
today's technology? What makes an electron detectable, in your mind?

The charge and any other effects we can measure that is it causes.
What do you think is the smallest thing we can detect now
and do you think that "thing" has no smaller parts?
Or is it plausible that technology is limited as it always has
been since it started?

Would it surprise you to learn that we can "see" objects (like
electrons) even though their spatial size is already too small for us
to detect? Would it suprise you to learn that their other properties
persist in being extremely measurable even if they are too spatially
small to measure?

Do you truly think the technology we have today can not
get any better?

No, I didn't say that either.

But this is sort of like saying, "Won't it be funny when scientists
find out that our minds can be extracted from our brains and kept alive
in bottles forever?" and then giving as support statements like:
"It's an idea."
"Isn't it possible that our minds our separate from our brains?"
"Don't you think that our technology will get better?"

Do you want to discuss physics, spaceman, or do you want to discuss
science fiction?